Wash. Rev. Code » Title 64 · Chapter 64.06
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.06.060 (2026)

Consumer protection act does not apply

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that the practices covered by this chapter are not matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW.
[ 1994 c 200 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1999–2017 · leading case: Svendsen v. Stock, 23 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Svendsen v. Stock, 23 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 9× “It provides that “the practices covered by this *554 chapter are not matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act.”
Svendsen v. Stock, 23 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 9× “It provides that "the practices covered by this chapter are not matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act." RCW 64.06.060. The Court of Appeals read that provision to mean that because Scott's liability stemmed from…”
Jonathan Deegan v. Windermere Real Est./Ctr. Isle, Inc., 197 Wash. App. 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “060 explicitly states that “the practices covered by this chapter are not matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the [CPA] ”; and (4) therefore, the lack of any public interest declared by RCW 64.06.060 precludes this CPA claim. 51 But their…”
Borish v. Russell, 155 Wash. App. 892 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “2d 120 (1994); see also RCW 64.06.060 (stating seller disclosures during real property transfers are not a matter affecting the public interest under the CPA).”
Borish v. Russell, 230 P.3d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “2d 120 (1994); see also RCW 64.06.060 (stating seller disclosures during real property transfers are not a matter affecting the public interest under the CPA).”
Svendsen v. Stock, 979 P.2d 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Scott contends that the CPA claim is expressly barred by the seller disclosure statute, RCW 64.06.060. We agree. “[T]he question of whether particular actions gave rise to a violation of the Consumer Protection Act is reviewable as a question of law.”
Noel Moon v. William Barr, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “In reversing, we noted that RCW 64.06.060's language explicitly stated "'the practices covered by this chapter are not matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the [CPA].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.